Jun 9, 2011 9:03 AM

This is a subject I never gave a lot of thought to until yesterday. Now I am completely confused and don't know what to make of this.

I decided to take an online fitness test, mainly so I can gauge my strength training progress. I wasn't even worried about my cardio fitness but it was part of the test so I did the 3 Minute Step Test. So first of all, I scored Excellent on all the strength tests - push ups, sit ups, squats, etc. - for my age. I did at least 10 more reps than required for Excellent in every category. Wow, I was pleased with that. But then the cardio test, the one I wasn't worried about at all? I scored VERY POOR! Yes, I scored the LOWEST POSSIBLE SCORE! In other words a sedentary, obese smoker couldn't do any worse than I did!!!

Yes, me, a runner, who has been running for years. Me, who runs several day a week in the heat, and on hills. Me, who runs races and places in the middle of my age group (I'm not fast, but not by any means the slowest either). Me, who runs comfortably and easily without ever gasping for breath - except maybe right after a very steep hill, although I recovery quickly. Me, who scores Above Average on other tests like how fast I can run 1.5 miles or the Cooper 12 minute run test.

I am very confused by this and don't understand it at all. Here is how it went down: You step up on a 12" step for three minutes. You IMMEDIATELY take your HR for one minute and the chart tells you your fitness level (a very standard test.) I stepped up and down on the 12" step for three minutes. Easy. Not difficult, not out of breath. I immediately took my HR - 132. Looked at the chart and saw my result was VERY POOR. It seems to indicate that my heart is in bad condition and I could die while running at any time. WHAT THE HECK????

When I run I feel fine. When I'm finished running, I recovery quickly - within a minute or two - and I feel fine. Yesterday, I thought I was in good shape. Today, I feel like a worthless slob. Not only that, I'm afraid to ever run again because if I am such poor condition, I may drop dead!

Has anyone else taken the 3 Minute Step Test? Can you explain my results?

This seems odd to me, 132 should not indicate a poor rating, that is a very low heart rate for doing physical activity and should indicate you are healthy! Is there a web link for this 3 minute step test? I'd like to try it and see what it says for me!

Edit:

Ok so I just did a little research on the test, should have done that first before I replied. Did you actually count each beat for the full minute? It's interesting this test, they are trying to gauge how quickly your heart rate drops during a one minute recovery, but even still after 1 minute is it really possible for your heart rate to drop back down to a resting heart rate? I suppose it's all in how high the rate goes up during the 3 minutes? It's an interesting test, and I understand what they are doing, but I don't think that is the only way to test your fitness. I would be curious to see something where it compares max heart rate to 3 minute step exercise. I'll have to give this a shot and see what it tells me, I have a feeling mine might be similar which would also indicate poor fitness, but there's no way I would categorize myself in that way.

If it really wants to compare your HR from its highest (while you are actually exercising) to the level it is exactly one minute after you stop, then counting the beats for a minute isn't really accurate. At least I don't think so! In other words, say my HR was 145 during the activity, and as soon as I stopped it started dropping so that at one minute the rate was 120 (a drop of 25 beats which is good.) But the AVERAGE over that minute would be 132. I don't see how the chart accounts for that.

BTW, I continued counting my HR for three full minutes after I stopped. At one minute it was 132, at two minutes it was 101 and at three minutes it was 84. It dropped almost 50 beats within three minutes....but I am in Very Poor condition!

Please do the test and tell me what you get! I will add that I used an online metronome set on 96 to time my steps (which is what one of the tests suggested) so it wouldn't skew the results by doing it too fast or slow.

I have never done that test and don't know anything about it, but do alot of active recovery running and it is a great way to tell your fitness. You should be able to tell how fit you are by how fast you recovery after one of those Atlanta Hills!!!! I wonder if because you did not get over 134 that cause the problem, 134 is fairly low that is below 70% for me, I would think that the test wanted you to get higher?????? We often run repeats at 85-90% and strive to get our HR down in the 70% range in a min with active running. I sure you know this the faster it comes down the fitter you are.

Which test did you use? I found about nine of them, all slightly different. Most of them then used your heart rate in a formula to estimate VO2max.

Edit: Some of the tests tell you to stand up to take your pulse, some to sit down. Most say to count the number of beats over 1 minute. I just found another that puts 132 (women) in the "Fair" category.

I saw several others that were similar. All of them said to start counting as soon as you stopped stepping which I did, and I did sit down to take my pulse. Funny, this test says it measures "cardiovascular endurance". I may be way out on a limb here, but if I can comfortably run for an hour (and longer when I'm training) at a moderate speed without any difficulties during or after, then how does this three minute test confidently tell me that my "cardiovascular endurance" is Very Poor?

Did you do the step-test last? When you did it relative to the other tests may have had an effect on the results. Also, that one tells you to remain standing while you take your pulse. I don't know if that would make it better or worse. I'll try it if I can find a 12" step - not something I keep handy.

I did the step test first - I figured the other exercises might leave me with a residual elevated HR. I looked at another version of the same test on Spark People that said to sit down while taking the pulse (otherwise it was the exact same test) so I don't know how much diff that would make.

Hey, I'd love it if you would take the test and tell me how it worked out for you so I can put it in perspective. Thanks!

I'll try it later tonight and edit this with a result. But something I see right off the bat is they don't tell you how fast to step. I would think you could get a huge range of numbers depending on what kind of pace you maintain. The Harvard Step Test looks to me like it would be more accurate http://www.topendsports.com/testing/tests/step-harvard.htm

It does say to not concentrate on the socre itself, but how you improve. I think this kind of rough test is better at guaging how much your fitnes is increasing, and not so good at comparing yourself to the general population. I think the fact that you can run for an hour says a LOT more than your heart rate after 3 min of exercise.

ok, I'm 45 and got 95- BUT I think this test in particular is only good for tracking personal progress, and not overall fitness. And only if you use the same step rate each time. I'd suggest trying to slow down your step rate, and see how it affects the score. Or try either the Havard or Queen's College for what I suspect would be a more accurate score. I'll try one of them later using a metranome app on my phone.

Another thing they mention that is a good point is that your weight. These tests will negatvily bias heavier people more than, say, a treadmill or stationary bike test.

The bottom line is, you know you're fit. All this is really good for is tracking how your fitness changes.

@ 64spokes: I did use a metronome set at 96 to pace my steps because the test on Spark People said to do that (exactly the same test). It is a steady, moderate beat, not fast.

So seeing that the test showed you as in excellent shape, then it is obviously accurate. I guess I really AM in "Very Poor" shape. I don't think improvement is really something I am shooting for at this point. I have been running for several years and have probably reached my peak fitness (unless I really pushed for the next level, which I'm not interested in doing.) If working out intensely 5-6 days/week for the last several years hasn't even made me any fitter than Very Poor, then what is the point.

I went all over my house, inside and out and could not find a 12 inch step so I could try this. Those of you that were able to do it, did you have an actual step bench or where did you find the right height to be able to do this test? I have a lot of steps in and out of my house and none of them are 12 inches, I'm surprised they would make a test like this for a height that is not common. I was hoping to find some 6 inch steps and do two at a time, but that didn't work either.

Sorry Mary, I missed that earlier where you mentioned the metranome. My understanding is that V02max potential is mostly genetic. So if you're out of shape, you can increase it to your potential, but after that, you can train as hard as you want and it won't do much for your numbers. The "Marathon Challenge" episode of PBS's Nova talks about this, as they test the participetns prior to starting the training program. If you've never seen, it, look for it in your library. I guess what I'm saying is that you don't have the genetics to win a marathon, and even at 'good' neither do I.

I used to be a bike racer, and quickly learned that no amount of training could make up for the luck of birth.

Angelique, I used an Ikea step stool we have in the bathroom for my son to reach the sink. It's 12" and nice and stable so it worked well. But I coulnd't find anything higher to try the other tests.

My understanding is that V02max potential is mostly genetic. So if you're out of shape, you can increase it to your potential, but after that, you can train as hard as you want and it won't do much for your numbers.

Probably true and a good point.

I am coming back to this thread just to vent a little more because I am still P*#&$ed about it! Maybe, like you say, I am not genetically inclined to good V02 max. But I do know this: that among my circle of family and friends, I am known for my relatively high level of endurance (a trainer I have worked with occasionally has even made that observation). That isn't saying a lot since few of these people run so there isn't really any direct comparison. But then again, the reason most of them don't run is because it is "too hard". Yet for me its NOT too hard! No, I'm not any great runner. Compared to other runners (as opposed to those who don't run at all) I am just average for my age/gender. But even an "average" runner should be in GOOD shape compared to the general population.....right? And yet I scored the VERY LOWEST POSSIBLE SCORE on the test?

I guess it set me off today, in particular, because I went for a four mile run a little while ago in the 90 degree heat. I didn't run fast (10:20 miles) but I passed some other runners, including women half my age and 40 lbs lighter. I even passed a couple of men (okay, they were older, out of shape men, but still!) I was hot and sweaty, of course, but I was running comfortably. I didn't check my HR immediately after running, but by the time I got home it was about 80. Yet always, always, there is a little voice inside my head saying "You are a phony! You are in VERY POOR condition. You suck".

Sorry, I just can't seem to get over this. I even hesitate now, when I post on newbies threads, to give any advice because I feel like ranking so low on the fitness test I am not qualified to advise anyone else.

Look at it this way, it's kind of like taking a 10 question quiz in a magazine at the checkout counter to find out your IQ. Not only is it a very poor aproximation of your IQ, but your IQ really doesn't have anything useful to say about you other than how well you do on IQ tests. If this test were really all that good, they'd be using it rather than real VO2max tests in the lab. It's good because it's easy, and that's about it. There are so many variables it's not taking into account: height, weight, normal pulse range (both resting and max)... and you mentioned endurance. This test doesn't say ANYTHING about endurance.

Like I think I said before, it might be good as an individual's guage of improvement, but not for comparing to someone else.

Marykb wrote:

Sorry, I just can't seem to get over this. I even hesitate now, when I post on newbies threads, to give any advice because I feel like ranking so low on the fitness test I am not qualified to advise anyone else.

PLEASE! please please keep answering! There's a huge range of people that call themselves runners, and come here to give and ask for advice. The advice from an olympic coach on how to shave 1 min off a 2:10 marathon is going to be useless to someone worried about finishing their first 5K. What counts isn't some number on some test, but how useful your advice is. Heck, I've never run more than 10mi, but I've answered questions from people about marathons, because I think I have a perspective to offer.

Instead of worrying about a test, consider how you feel after a run :-) THAT'S what's important!

You know that these test results are garbage, so -- there's something wrong with the test! My internet connection is still dial-up, so I haven't been eager to track down the details, but if it's giving you this kind of results it's an invalid test.

My suspicion is that the weak point is judging fitness by heartbeat in the first place. Maximal heart beats can be predicted by age and gender, and target heart rates are often recommended, but they are also known not to apply to everyone.